a. Prior Art Disclosures
Prior art teachings of which the inventors have knowledge are disclosed in the following U.S. Pat. Nos. 3,865,220; 3,871,710; 3,967,856; 4,278,265; 4,913,500; 5,326,331; 5,332,295; 5,445,439; and 5,487,592.
b. Problems in the Art
A major challenge to protect spokes, particularly bicycle spokes, from being jammed or damaged by a chain that leaves its sprocket, usually in the step of gear over-shifting, has been addressed and as illustrated in U.S. Pat. No. 4,278,265, directed to a spoke protector formed of synthetic resin, and in U.S. Pat. No. 5,326,331, directed to a guard that hooks onto the spokes. In the instant invention, a ring is provided in the hub assembly and which maintains the chain on the cogs of the sprocket adjacent to the hub assembly, without the chain jumping from the cogs, in an over-shifting of the gears or otherwise, to interfere with the spokes thereby, and either requiring a halt to bicycling to replace the chain on one of its sprockets or damaging them. In addition, the invention's hub assembly entirely precludes any interference of chain and spoke, with or without the ring.
Further, wheel weakness exists in both conventional front and rear wheels. In conventional rear wheels, there is an uneven included angle for the spokes, the included angle formed by its portions to each side of the center line or plane passing through the wheel's rim and a central point in the distance between the pair of forks to which a hub assembly mounts. Longer spokes in a first set of spokes mount between rim and the flange on the end of the hub opposite its end at which sprockets are mounted. Less tension is provided on these spokes than the tension on the shorter spokes in a second set of spokes that mount to the flange immediately adjacent sprockets that mount to the hub's other end. The uneven spoke tension between these two sets of spokes results in a weak wheel, a weaker wheel to say the least.
The uneven included angle results from sprockets conventionally added to the one end of the hub's housing, the angle portion (with the second or shorter set of spokes) being reduced, thereby producing the uneven or non-uniform tension between the first or longer and the second or shorter sets of spokes. When a force or thrust is imparted to the rim at 90 degrees to the center line or plane of the wheel, not absorbed by the wheel, the first set tends to collapse while the second set of spokes tends to stretch. When a sufficient force or thrust is imparted to the rim at 90 degrees to the center line or plane of the wheel, not absorbed by the wheel, the second set tends to collapse while the first set of spokes tend to stretch. The wheel, of course, could collapse or otherwise be damaged because of this weakness or become more weak without apparent manifestation of it.
As to the front wheel, the spokes are generally of even length in both sets of spokes and the included angle is generally evenly distributed about the center line or plane passing through rim and the noted central point. However, with longer spokes for both sets, the included angle is smaller rather than greater and this makes for a weaker wheel than were the included angle to be greater with shorter spokes.
This invention addresses the above noted disadvantages and removes the weaknesses in both front and rear spoked wheels, particularly as applied to bicycle wheels.
Strength in both front and rear bicycle wheels is an advantage in any reasonable use of a bicycle (or in any other spoked-wheel vehicle). As an example, in mountain bike racing, because of the front wheel's manipulation, in terms of turning the front wheel back and forth as well as it being bounced up and down, as the bike is maneuvered along rugged, rocky terrain on tortuous paths, conventional front wheels of bikes in mountain racing in many instances end up buckled or collapsed because of the lack of wheel strength to take the forces or thrusts imparted to it, even though the included angle for both sets of spokes in the front wheel is generally evenly distributed about the noted center line or plane. In this invention, since the spoke flanges (on the invention's hub) are disposed or situated closer to the rim (in the rear wheel as well), as they are separated from, i.e., no longer being spoke flanges attached to a conventional hollow tubular member or shell (deemed to be a hub), both angular portions (to each side of the wheel's center line or plane) of the included angle are increased, increasing the included angle for the front wheel, although the included angle for the rear wheel is not increased, and substantially, if not fully, providing for an equalization of such angular portions in both wheels, to produce an even or uniform spoke tension in both sets of spokes for each of such wheels. The strength that now is incorporated into the wheels eliminates wheel failure.